Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I respond?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I don't believe there is a time agreement. If the Senator has concluded his remarks, I would like an opportunity to conclude mine.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like to respond.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I will set the record straight. This is not just Southern California Edison or PG&E. There is virtually no creditor or debtor that is in support of the Wyden amendment. Not even the Bonneville Power Administration has written a letter in support of this amendment. There is a reason why they are not in support of this amendment. Once you create a preferred class of creditors, you prompt the breaking of the dam and other creditors will force an involuntary bankruptcy. If that happens, it is the wrong chapter. It is chapter 7. It is disillusion. It means the utilities get out of the business of distributing power. This is why this amendment is so dangerous. If the Senator can show me some of these authorities that think this kind of change of bankruptcy law in the middle of what is an extraordinarily precarious situation is a good thing, I may relent. I have introduced about a dozen letters, not just from Southern California Edison but from creditors, big and small. One of the rumors on the street is that many of the renewable power generators--the wind and solar generating firms for example--are most concerned and would therefore press bankruptcy should this amendment pass. To get involved in the State's healing process is extraordinarily dangerous. That is my argument. I am not sure simply extending the time obviates the argument I am making. I have virtually every one of these letters that say in so many words, don't force them to exercise their rights to push these companies into bankruptcy. That is what this amendment does. I find it very hard when my distinguished colleague says it is just one utility advocating against his amendment. It is not. It is the big generators, the small generators, it is virtually everybody involved in this situation who says, let us try to work it out with the State. Let the State buy these transmission lines. That will inject billions to pay creditors. If you vitiate or abrogate it by creating a preferred class of creditor, you will encourage other creditors to push for bankruptcy. There are literary hundreds of creditors, huge banks, small banks. I understand the Senator is trying to do something for his State. I understand that. It is incomprehensible to me to think the Bonneville Power Administration isn't going to get paid back. I believe they will. I believe if you amend bankruptcy law to provide for it, you simply cause a reaction from the other creditors that I think can be devastating. That is the sum and substance of my argument. I have tried to indicate that with a large number of letters. I regret if anyone thinks this is just one utility advocating against this amendment. It is not. It is virtually the entire creditor community.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If you put a time date in this, why wouldn't that encourage certain creditors to beat that date and push into bankruptcy ahead of that deadline? This is what every bankruptcy attorney with whom I have talked--and I have it right here: The inclusion of an effective date may not reduce the likelihood that non-covered creditors would rush the bankruptcy process, but rather could heighten and accelerate that risk because the affected parties will perceive a need to beat the legislative clock while simultaneously trying to amend the legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may respond to the offer of the Senator from Oregon, I will be happy to take a look at it. The problem I have with it is that it does not stop what I am concerned about, which is a run on the bank; that as soon as creditors find there is an amendment in the bankruptcy legislation which gives a preference to a certain class of creditors, they then have to exercise their right and ultimately the utility companies will be driven to bankruptcy. I did not enter this letter into the Record. The American Gas Association just put it the way it is. I do not know whether the time solution proposed by the Senator from Oregon solves this, but ``By creating a preferred class of creditors,'' which your amendment does, ``in effect the nonpreferred creditors would initiate involuntary bankruptcy proceedings against the utility. As the preferred creditors''--those are your entities--``would in actuality control the bankruptcy proceedings through their status, in effect chapter 11 reorganization would not be an option. Liquidation of assets through chapter 7 would result.'' That is what I am trying to avoid. No matter what you do, you create this situation of preferred versus nonpreferred so the nonpreferred exert their rights now and throw the situation into bankruptcy. This is not me saying it, this is the president and CEO of the American Gas Association saying that is what would happen. I do not know whether a time delay solves that basic problem.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate that. I appreciate the Senator from Oregon saying he may postpone his amendment to give the State of California a chance to go forward with its comprehensive remedies. We do have to wait and see.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate the question. I believe very strongly about this amendment, and I believe it is going to have untoward consequences and act directly contrary to what the Senator from Oregon believes. I cannot give a precise time. I have been here all day. I have done nothing else. I would like to have a chance to make the arguments against the amendment following the comments of the chairman of the Energy Committee.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator and Chairman of the Committee for his comments. He asked, what do the two utilities at issue think of this? I will respond and I will give the comment of Robert Glynn--the Chairman, President, and CEO of Pacific Gas and Electric. This is his company's position: PG&E is at a critical point in sensitive negotiations to resolve an energy crisis that is affecting the Western United States. Our creditors have been willing to forbear in the interest of achieving a comprehensive solution that is fair to all parties. This amendment would change the relationship among creditors and could destabilize the fragile cooperation that currently exists. It would be a terrible irony if actions of the United States Government were responsible for tipping this situation over the edge. That is the response of one of the major investor-owned utilities in the State of California. I have input from the other, Southern California Edison, and I will read from a letter by John Bryson, CEO of Southern California Edison: Unfortunately, the Wyden amendment undermines the solution being crafted within the State. The Wyden amendment would require that, in the event of bankruptcy, the power generators who have made significant profits from this crisis receive full payment before small businesses, banks and bond holders. This is not fair to the other creditors. Furthermore, this amendment could trigger the bankruptcies that everyone is trying to avoid. Other creditors will not stand by and just watch as the amendment takes away their rights. This is the reason I so strongly oppose this amendment. I don't believe the Senators who support this Wyden amendment have an understanding of what might happen. There is $13 billion of debt out there. It involves banks all over the United States. It involves high- tech companies, it involves cities, it involves generators, it involves natural gas companies, it involves a wide range of debtors and creditors. Right now, the State of California has made considerable progress toward resolving this crisis. More than anything, the State needs some time to conclude those negotiations. If the State is able to conclude negotiations, this means that the debt could be paid to the utilities, and would help exactly the creditors that Senators Wyden and Smith want to help. At this point, the State doesn't need the Federal Government to step in and destroy the progress they have made. I have checked with bankruptcy attorneys, and I believe I am right. This amendment is unprecedented. Never before without a hearing has the Senate of the United States decided the pecking order of creditors and debtors for a potential bankruptcy of this size. This amendment rewrites the bankruptcy rules in favor of one set of creditors. It creates an enormous incentive, as the Chairman has just said, for other creditors to now push the utilities into bankruptcy before this amendment would be signed into law. It is like a run on the bank. So without a hearing, this amendment seeks to determine winners and losers. There is not a single debtor or creditor that I know that supports this amendment. Virtually all of them have opposed to this amendment. Even some of the people helped by the amendment are opposed. That includes the California Municipal Utilities Association, the City of Los Angeles, Duke, Enron, Calpine, and Williams who all oppose this amendment. Let me quote from some of the letters I have received. I begin with the Governor of the State of California. A critical component of the plan to resolve California's energy challenge is the return of our utilities to financial solvency. Our efforts have taken the form of painstaking negotiations between the State and the utilities to stabilize their financial condition. Any attempt to create a special class of debtor under Federal bankruptcy laws, may have serious repercussions to our efforts. Therefore, I am writing to express my strong opposition to Senator Ron Wyden's amendment to S. 420, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001. Any actions on the part of the United States Senate might very well undermine all the progress we have made to this point in our negotiations with the utilities. This is a very delicate process and we urge the Senate to allow all parties in California to continue their work together to solve this crisis. Now from the Electric Power Supply Association, which is the electric generating companies together: This amendment seeks to give certain entities a favorable status in the event that California utilities fall into bankruptcy. Many companies have provided power to California's consumers and EPSA, the Electrical Power Supply Association, believes emphatically that all these entities deserve to be fully and fairly compensated. However, it is inappropriate for the Senate to try and create winners and losers in this desperate situation. Rather than orderly resolution, this legislation could lead to a premature declaration of bankruptcy and the inevitable liquidation of the California electric utilities assets in a legal free-for- all. We urge you to oppose the Wyden amendment. Let me read from a letter submitted by a big electric generator, Williams--a generator that has profited mightily from this situation: Williams is strongly opposed to any such proposal. In our judgment, intervention by the Congress in the California market in a way that picks winners and losers among similarly situated parties will only precipitate a deepening of the crisis. It will cripple ongoing efforts within the State to resolve the crisis and trigger an outpouring of litigation and legal maneuvering that would prolong the crisis, not resolve it. Restoring financial solvency to the local utilities is a critical element of any long-term solution to the electricity problem in California. If those utilities are forced into bankruptcy, the immediate result would be to plunge everyone involved in the crisis into protracted, uncertain, court proceedings. In our judgment, this proposed legislation will only serve to precipitate that bankruptcy. I fear the mere possibility that such an amendment might become law will leave those involved little choice but to trigger bankruptcy proceedings in order to protect their own interests. Let me give you another generator's view, Calpine: Under Senator Wyden's amendment, many out-of-state power producers, both public and private entities, would be made whole under any eventual utility bankruptcy, while QF's, forced to sell by virtue of contracts rather than a federal emergency order, would likely be left with little or no recourse. Some of the cleanest, most environmentally desirable sources of energy would be severely disadvantaged by this action. While on fairness grounds alone, we believe the Wyden amendment should be defeated, perhaps more importantly, we think the amendment would only worsen the California energy crisis. Creditors have shown remarkable patience to date, giving California state officials an opportunity to seek a solution that avoids utility bankruptcy. This amendment, however, could trigger an immediate bankruptcy filing in order for the filing to precede enactment of the legislation. So you see, just by passing this, what we do is, to all the community out there that is owed money, we trigger their urge to move the companies into bankruptcy. That would be a huge mistake. This letter is signed by the vice president of the company. Mr. President, I would like to read from a statement by the Edison Electric Institute which, as I understand it, represents most electric utilities with the exception of Pacific Gas and Electric: I am writing to express our concerns regarding a proposed amendment to S. 420, the ``Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001'', that may be offered by Senator Wyden for himself and Senators Baucus and Murray. While there appear to have been several iterations of that amendment, the thrust appears to favor public power electricity suppliers in a utility bankruptcy proceeding by providing that debts to them for electricity are not dischargeable. The amendment also applies to debts for wholesale electric power received pursuant to the emergency order issued by the Secretary of Energy under section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act. This amendment raises large public policy concerns by affecting all utilities as well as those involved in bankruptcy proceedings. First, it primarily advantages government-owned utilities who already are uniquely able to sell power at rates which are not subject to regulation by FERC. It makes no sense to give a bankruptcy preference to the only generators whose rates are unregu- lated. . . . This amendment would undermine efforts underway to address the current electricity situation in California. All parties, including the Governor, the utilities and creditors, are trying to work out an agreement. Passage (as well as concern about the possible passage) of this amendment could disrupt these efforts and lead to immediate initiation of bankruptcy proceedings. Mr. President, this is not me saying this. These are the major creditors and debtors in this situation, all of whom are saying that once you give preference to one, the others will trigger bankruptcy to protect their rights. And, in protecting their rights, it will push these utilities into bankruptcy because that is the only way they can do it. If you push these utilities into bankruptcy, I believe it is likely they will go into chapter 7--not 11 or 13, but 7, and, therefore, they will go out of business altogether. So it is a very dangerous thing to do. The surprising thing is we have this amendment on the floor, in view of the fact that virtually all of the major creditors and debtors oppose it because they know exactly what is going to happen. We also have unions. I would like to have printed in the Record the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers' letter. They represent over 800,000 electrical workers, who also believe the effect this would have would be to trigger a bankruptcy. I ask unanimous consent these letters in their entirety be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the amendment on the bankruptcy bill that I have proposed is a very straightforward amendment. It simply says credit card companies that issue credit cards to minors must limit that debt to $2,500 a credit card, unless the minor demonstrates the means to pay back the debt, or a parent cosigns for the debt. In addition, the amendment would entitle parents who cosign on their child's credit card the opportunity to be consulted before the debt limit on the card is increased. The amendment is basically a compromise. I amended the amendment to place a cap of $2,500 a card rather than $2,500 on all cards a minor might have. The reason for the amendment is a simple one. Student credit card debt has increased 46 percent over the last 2 years alone. Bankruptcy filings among youth have increased sevenfold since 1996. The problem is, there is no limit on the credit card debt a youngster can accumulate. This amendment would end that problem, give parents the responsibility of choosing to cosign for their youngster if they want more than a $2,500 cap, unless the youngster could demonstrate that they had the source of income to support the debt. So essentially what this amendment does is provide a credit card limit of debt of $2,500 a card for a youngster who is under the age of 21. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself, Senator Schumer, and Senator Kennedy to re-introduce the Military Sniper Weapon Regulation Act. This bill, which I first introduced with Senator Lautenberg in 1999, will reclassify powerful .50 caliber military sniper rifles under the National Firearms Act, thus making it much more difficult for terrorists, doomsday cults, and criminals to obtain these guns for illegitimate use. It is my sincere hope that in this new, 50- 50 Senate, we can finally make some progress on this bill and limit the use of these powerful guns. Fifty caliber sniper rifles, manufactured by a small handful of companies and individuals, are deadly, military style assault weapons, designed for armed combat with wartime enemies. They weigh up to 28 pounds and are capable of piercing light armor at more than 4 miles. The guns enable a single shooter to destroy enemy jeeps, tanks, personnel carriers, bunkers, fuel stations, and even communication centers. As a result, their use by military organizations worldwide has been spreading rapidly. But along with the increasing military use of the gun, we have also seen increased use of the weapon by violent criminals and terrorists around the world. The weapons are deadly accurate up to 2,000 yards. This means that a shooter using a 50 caliber weapon can reliably hit a target more than a mile away. In fact, according to a training manual for military and police snipers published in 1993, a bullet from this gun ``even at one and a half miles crashes into a target with more energy than Dirty Harry's famous .44 magnum at point-blank'' range. And the gun is ``effective'' up to 7,500 yards. In other words, although it may be hard to aim at that distance, the gun will have its desired destructive effect at that distance--more than 4 miles from the target. The weapon can penetrate several inches of steel, concrete, or even light armor. In fact, many ranges used for target practice do not even have enough safety features to accommodate these guns, it is just too powerful. Recent advances in weapons technology allow this gun to be used by civilians against armored limousines, bunkers, individuals, and even aircraft, in fact, one advertisement for the gun apparently promoted the weapon as able to ``wreck several million dollars' worth of jet aircraft with one or two dollars' worth of cartridge.'' This gun is so powerful that one dealer told undercover GAO investigators ``You'd better buy one soon. It's only a matter of time before someone lets go a round on a range that travels so far, it hits a school bus full of kids. The government will definitely ban .50 calibers. This gun is just too powerful.'' When I first introduced this bill, I commented that a study by the General Accounting Office revealed some eye-opening facts about how and where this gun is used, and how easily it is obtained. The GAO reports that many of these guns wind up in the hands of domestic and international terrorists, religious cults, outlaw motorcycle gangs, drug traffickers, and violent criminals. One doomsday cult headquartered in Montana purchased 10 of these guns and stockpiled them in an underground bunker, along with thousands of rounds of ammunition and other guns. At least one .50 caliber gun was recovered by Mexican authorities after a shoot-out with an international drug cartel in that country. The gun was originally purchased in Wyoming, so it is clear that the guns are making their way into the hands of criminals worldwide. Another .50 caliber sniper rifle, smuggled out of the United States, was used by the Irish Republican Army to kill a large number of British soldiers. And ammunition for these guns is also readily available, even over the Internet. Bullets for these guns include ``armor piercing incendiary'' ammunition that explodes on impact, and even ``armor piercing tracing'' ammunition reminiscent of the ammunition that lit up the skies over Baghdad during the Persian Gulf war. Several ammunition dealers were willing to sell armor piercing ammunition to an undercover GAO investigator even after the investigator said he wanted the ammunition to pierce an armored limousine or maybe to ``take down'' a helicopter. In fact, our own military helps to provide thousands of rounds of .50 caliber ammunition, by essentially giving away tons of spent cartridges, many of which are then refurbished and sold on the civilian market. This bill will begin the process of making these guns harder to get and easier to track. Current law classifies .50 caliber guns as ``long guns,'' subject to the least government regulation for any firearm. Sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, and even handguns are more highly regulated than this military sniper rifle. In fact, many states allow possession of .50 caliber guns by those as young as 14 years old, and there is no regulation on second-hand sales. Essentially, this bill would re-classify .50 caliber guns under the National Firearms Act, which imposes far stricter standards on powerful and destruction weapons. For instance: NFA guns may only be purchased from a licensed dealer, and not second-hand. This will prevent the sale of these guns at gun shows and in other venues that make it hard for law enforcement to track the weapons. Second, purchasers of NFA guns must fill out license transfer applications and provide fingerprints to be processed by the FBI in detailed criminal background checks. By reclassifying the .50 caliber, Congress will be making a determination that sellers should be more careful about to whom they give these powerful, military guns. ATF reports that this background check process takes about 60 days, so prospective gun buyers will face some delay. However, legitimate purchasers of this $7,000 gun can certainly wait that long. Clearly, placing a few more restrictions on who can get these guns and how is simply common sense. This bill will not ban the sale, use or possession of .50 caliber weapons. The .50 caliber shooting club will not face extinction, and ``legitimate'' purchasers of these guns will not lose their access--even though that, too, might be a reasonable step, since I cannot imagine a legitimate use of this gun. The bill will simply place stricter requirements on the way in which these guns can be sold, and to whom. The measure is meant to offer a reasoned solution to making it harder for terrorists, assassins, and other criminals to obtain these powerful weapons. If we are to continue to allow private citizens to own and use guns of this caliber, range, and destructive power, we should at the very least take greater care in making sure that these guns do not fall into the wrong hands. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself, Senator Schumer, and Senator Kennedy to re-introduce the Military Sniper Weapon Regulation Act. This bill, which I first introduced with Senator Lautenberg in 1999, will reclassify powerful .50 caliber military sniper rifles under the National Firearms Act, thus making it much more difficult for terrorists, doomsday cults, and criminals to obtain these guns for illegitimate use. It is my sincere hope that in this new, 50- 50 Senate, we can finally make some progress on this bill and limit the use of these powerful guns. Fifty caliber sniper rifles, manufactured by a small handful of companies and individuals, are deadly, military style assault weapons, designed for armed combat with wartime enemies. They weigh up to 28 pounds and are capable of piercing light armor at more than 4 miles. The guns enable a single shooter to destroy enemy jeeps, tanks, personnel carriers, bunkers, fuel stations, and even communication centers. As a result, their use by military organizations worldwide has been spreading rapidly. But along with the increasing military use of the gun, we have also seen increased use of the weapon by violent criminals and terrorists around the world. The weapons are deadly accurate up to 2,000 yards. This means that a shooter using a 50 caliber weapon can reliably hit a target more than a mile away. In fact, according to a training manual for military and police snipers published in 1993, a bullet from this gun ``even at one and a half miles crashes into a target with more energy than Dirty Harry's famous .44 magnum at point-blank'' range. And the gun is ``effective'' up to 7,500 yards. In other words, although it may be hard to aim at that distance, the gun will have its desired destructive effect at that distance--more than 4 miles from the target. The weapon can penetrate several inches of steel, concrete, or even light armor. In fact, many ranges used for target practice do not even have enough safety features to accommodate these guns, it is just too powerful. Recent advances in weapons technology allow this gun to be used by civilians against armored limousines, bunkers, individuals, and even aircraft, in fact, one advertisement for the gun apparently promoted the weapon as able to ``wreck several million dollars' worth of jet aircraft with one or two dollars' worth of cartridge.'' This gun is so powerful that one dealer told undercover GAO investigators ``You'd better buy one soon. It's only a matter of time before someone lets go a round on a range that travels so far, it hits a school bus full of kids. The government will definitely ban .50 calibers. This gun is just too powerful.'' When I first introduced this bill, I commented that a study by the General Accounting Office revealed some eye-opening facts about how and where this gun is used, and how easily it is obtained. The GAO reports that many of these guns wind up in the hands of domestic and international terrorists, religious cults, outlaw motorcycle gangs, drug traffickers, and violent criminals. One doomsday cult headquartered in Montana purchased 10 of these guns and stockpiled them in an underground bunker, along with thousands of rounds of ammunition and other guns. At least one .50 caliber gun was recovered by Mexican authorities after a shoot-out with an international drug cartel in that country. The gun was originally purchased in Wyoming, so it is clear that the guns are making their way into the hands of criminals worldwide. Another .50 caliber sniper rifle, smuggled out of the United States, was used by the Irish Republican Army to kill a large number of British soldiers. And ammunition for these guns is also readily available, even over the Internet. Bullets for these guns include ``armor piercing incendiary'' ammunition that explodes on impact, and even ``armor piercing tracing'' ammunition reminiscent of the ammunition that lit up the skies over Baghdad during the Persian Gulf war. Several ammunition dealers were willing to sell armor piercing ammunition to an undercover GAO investigator even after the investigator said he wanted the ammunition to pierce an armored limousine or maybe to ``take down'' a helicopter. In fact, our own military helps to provide thousands of rounds of .50 caliber ammunition, by essentially giving away tons of spent cartridges, many of which are then refurbished and sold on the civilian market. This bill will begin the process of making these guns harder to get and easier to track. Current law classifies .50 caliber guns as ``long guns,'' subject to the least government regulation for any firearm. Sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, and even handguns are more highly regulated than this military sniper rifle. In fact, many states allow possession of .50 caliber guns by those as young as 14 years old, and there is no regulation on second-hand sales. Essentially, this bill would re-classify .50 caliber guns under the National Firearms Act, which imposes far stricter standards on powerful and destruction weapons. For instance: NFA guns may only be purchased from a licensed dealer, and not second-hand. This will prevent the sale of these guns at gun shows and in other venues that make it hard for law enforcement to track the weapons. Second, purchasers of NFA guns must fill out license transfer applications and provide fingerprints to be processed by the FBI in detailed criminal background checks. By reclassifying the .50 caliber, Congress will be making a determination that sellers should be more careful about to whom they give these powerful, military guns. ATF reports that this background check process takes about 60 days, so prospective gun buyers will face some delay. However, legitimate purchasers of this $7,000 gun can certainly wait that long. Clearly, placing a few more restrictions on who can get these guns and how is simply common sense. This bill will not ban the sale, use or possession of .50 caliber weapons. The .50 caliber shooting club will not face extinction, and ``legitimate'' purchasers of these guns will not lose their access--even though that, too, might be a reasonable step, since I cannot imagine a legitimate use of this gun. The bill will simply place stricter requirements on the way in which these guns can be sold, and to whom. The measure is meant to offer a reasoned solution to making it harder for terrorists, assassins, and other criminals to obtain these powerful weapons. If we are to continue to allow private citizens to own and use guns of this caliber, range, and destructive power, we should at the very least take greater care in making sure that these guns do not fall into the wrong hands. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today is an important day for women and girls around the world. Today, we stand firmly on the side of basic human rights. Today, we rededicate ourselves to a better tomorrow. Today, we state loud and clear to those who seek to do women harm, ``No more.'' Today is March 8, 2001, International Women's Day. Having spent many years trying to raise awareness about the need for equality for women and girls in the United States and around the world, I am encouraged by the advancements we have made since the United Nations first designated March 8th as International Women's Day in 1975. Nevertheless, we still have a long ways to go and I would like to take this time to discuss several critical issues that I believe are vital to the lives of women and girls and require U.S. leadership: international family planning, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, CEDAW, sex trafficking, rape as an instrument of war, and the plight of women in Afghanistan. Every Senator, I believe, is well aware of the issue of United States assistance to international family planning organizations. There have been few issues in recent years that have been more debated, with people of good intentions on both sides of the issue. Consequently, I was dismayed when President Bush opted to start his administration by reinstating the ``global gag rule'' restricting United States assistance to international family planning organizations. Do we not understand the importance of family planning assistance? There are now more than 6 billion people on this Earth. The United Nations estimates this figure could be 12 billion by the year 2050. Almost all of this growth will occur in the places least able to bear up under the pressures of massive population increases. The brunt will be in developing countries lacking the resources needed to provide basic health or education services. Only if women have access to such educational and medical resources needed to control their reproductive destinies and their health will they be able to better their own lives and the lives of their families No one should doubt that international family planning programs reduce poverty, improve health, and raise living standards around the world; they enhance the ability of couples and individuals to determine the number and spacing of their children. Nevertheless, in recent years these programs have come under increasing partisan attack by the anti-choice wing of the Republican party, despite the fact that no U.S. international family planning funds are spent on international abortion. All American women, as they consider their own reproductive rights, should consider the aim and intent of a policy in which the reproductive rights of American women are approached one way, and those of women in the developing world another. Since President Bush is unlikely to change his mind, I urge my colleagues to support the Global Democracy Act of 2001, introduced by my friend and colleague from California, Senator Boxer. This important piece of legislation will allow foreign Non-Governmental Organizations that receive U.S. family planning assistance to use non-U.S. funds to provide legal abortion services, including counseling and referrals, and will lift the restrictions on lobbying and advocacy. The United States must reclaim its leadership role on international family planning and reproductive issues. The United States must renew its commitment to help those around the world who need and want our help and assistance. On International Women's Day, I urge my colleagues to support the Global Democracy Act of 2001. Last year, I was proud to join a bi-partisan group of women Senators in co-sponsoring Senate Resolution 237, a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should hold hearings on the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the full Senate should act on the Convention by March 9, 2000. That day came and went and here we are a year later, still waiting for the Senate to act. In fact, women have been waiting for over 20 years for the Senate to ratify the convention on discrimination against women. The United States actively participated in drafting the convention and President Carter signed it on July 17th, 1980. In 1994, the Foreign Relations Committee recommended by bipartisan vote that the convention be approved with qualifications, but acted too late in the session for the Convention to be considered by the full Senate. Given the length of the delay and the level of scrutiny, one might expect the convention on discrimination against women to be a technically demanding international agreement. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the convention is simple. It requires states to take all appropriate steps to eliminate discrimination against women in political and public life, law, education, employment, health care, commercial transactions, and domestic relations. One hundred and sixty-one countries have ratified the convention. Of the world's democracies, only the United States has yet to ratify this fundamental document. Indeed, even countries we regularly censure for human rights abuses China--the People's Republic of Laos, Iraq--have either signed or agreed in principle. In our failure to ratify the convention on discrimination against women, we now keep company with a select few: Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Afghanistan among them. Remember, as the old saying goes, we are judged by the company we keep. Is this how we want to be known when it comes to defending the human rights of those unable to defend themselves? In failing to ratify this convention on discrimination against women, we risk losing our moral right to lead in the human rights revolution. By ratifying the convention, we will demonstrate our commitment to promoting equality and to protecting women's rights throughout the world. By ratifying the convention, we will send a strong message to the international community that the U.S. understands the problems posed by discrimination against women, and we will not abide by it. By ratifying the convention, we reestablish our credentials as a leader on human rights and women's rights. Today, as we commemorate International Women's Day, I call on my colleagues in the Senate to move forward and ratify Convention on discrimination against women. The coerced trafficking of women and girls for sexual exploitation is an ugly, disturbing, and, unfortunately, growing practice that demands our attention. Over 1 million people are trafficked each year around the world, with 50,000 going to the United States. Trafficking generates billions of dollars a year and now constitutes the third largest source of profits for organized crime, behind only drugs and guns. These criminal groups prey upon women from poor countries who suffer from poverty, war, and hopelessness and desperately want a chance at a better life. They are enticed by promises of good paying jobs in richer countries as models, au pairs, dancers, and domestic workers. Once the women fall victim to the these gangs they are forced into labor, have their passports seized, and are subjected to beatings, rapes, starvation, forced drug use, and confinement. These victims have little or no legal protection. They travel on falsified documents or enter by means of inappropriate visas provided by traffickers. When and if discovered by the police, these women are usually treated as illegal aliens and deported. Even worse, laws against traffickers who engage in forced prostitution, rape, kidnaping, and assault and battery are rarely enforced. The women will not testify against traffickers out of fear of retribution, the threat of deportation, and humiliation for their actions. I am shocked and appalled that this horrible and degrading practice continues. The United States must act as a leader to rally the international community to put a stop to the trafficking of women and girls. I am proud that the 106th Congress passed, and President Clinton signed into law, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000. Among other things, the bill: directs the Secretary of State to provide an annual report to Congress listing countries that do and do not comply with minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking; establishes an Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking; provides assistance to foreign countries for programs and activities to meet the minimum international standards for the elimination of trafficking; withholds U.S. non- humanitarian assistance to countries that do not meet minimum standards against trafficking and are not making efforts to meet minimum standards, unless continued assistance is deemed to be in the U.S. national interest; and increases penalties for those engaged in sex trafficking. In addition, the fiscal year 2001 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act earmarked at least $1.35 million for the Protection Project to study international trafficking, prostitution, slavery, debt bondage, and other abuses of women and children. These are significant steps, but much work needs to be done. We must enforce the laws we have passed and we must consider new laws to protect victims and bring traffickers to justice. On International Women's Day, I urge my colleagues to continue the fight against the sexual trafficking of women and girls. Rape as an instrument of war is an issue which, in recent years, has been of increasing concern to me. Rape is no longer an isolated by-product of war; it is increasingly a tool to advance war aims. In recent years in Bosnia, Rwanda, and East Timor soldiers and militiamen used rape on a organized, systematic, and sustained basis to further their goal of ethnic cleansing. In some cases, women were kidnaped, interned in camps and houses, forced to do labor, and subjected frequent rape and sexual assault. I was pleased that the United Nations, in setting up the war crime tribunals for the Balkans and Rwanda, recognized rape as a war crime and a crime against humanity. Nevertheless, I was very disappointed by the repeated failure of the international community, especially in the former Yugoslavia, to see that those who were indicted for perpetrating these crimes were brought to justice. It appeared that the major step forward taken by the creation of the tribunals would be nullified by inaction. Finally, on February 22, 2001, the international tribunal in The Hague sentenced three Bosnian Serbs to prison for rape during the Bosnian war. I was very pleased the court took this step. Clearly, there is still much work to be done. Estimates are that up to 20,000 women in Yugoslavia were systematically raped as part of a policy of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Many perpetrators still remain at large. Nevertheless, the court has stated loud and clear that those who use rape as an instrument of war will no longer be able to escape justice. They will be arrested, tried, and convicted. As Judge Florence Mumba of Zambia stated, ``Lawless opportunists should expect no mercy, no matter how low their position in the chain of command may be.'' I commend the victims who courageously came forward to confront their attackers and offer testimony that helped lead to the convictions. The international community, and women in particular, owe them a debt of gratitude. On International Women's Day, I urge the Administration and the international community to join me in continuing the fight to end the practice of rape as an instrument of war, and to pursue justice for its victims. Perhaps nowhere in the world today is there a clearer test of our commitment of the cause of women's rights than Afghanistan. To put it simply, I am shocked and dismayed at the treatment of women in Afghanistan by the Taliban. Afghan women have been banned from work and school and are largely confined in their homes behind darkened windows. They are required to wear full-length veils, or burka, when in public and must be accompanied by a male member of the family. In addition, access to medical services has been dramatically reduced. Widows are not allowed to work and must beg to subsist. The women of Afghanistan, who have seen their families destroyed by war, are now having their economic life and their fundamental human rights stripped away, and the violations of Afghan women's basic human rights have pushed an already war-torn and war-weary Afghanistan to the brink of disaster. The suffering of Afghan women and girls must not be ignored by the United States and the international community. I am working on legislation with Senator Boxer to address their plight and put pressure on the Taliban to respect basic human rights. On International Women's Day, the United States, with our history of commitment to women's rights and equality, must redouble its efforts to place respect for women's rights at the top of the international community's agenda regarding Afghanistan. We must debate and ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. We must rededicate ourselves and our resources to international family planning programs. We must enforce tough anti-trafficking legislation. We must not ignore the gross violations of the human rights of Afghan women. We cannot afford to remain silent. We cannot afford to place women's rights on a second tier of concern of U.S. foreign policy. On International Women's Day, the United States and the international community must take a strong stand and issue a clear warning to those who attempt to rob women of basic rights that the world's governments will no longer ignore these abuses, or allow them to continue without repercussion.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. This is the case of Dr. James Whitemore, a retired surgeon from Carson, CA. When his son Quentin entered Cal-State Dominguez Hill, Dr. Whitemore cosigned his son's application for credit with the stipulation that the debt limit remain at $500. But without Dr. Whitemore's knowledge, MBNA, the credit card issuer, raised his son's credit limit repeatedly until it finally reached $9,000. After several years, Quentin's balance reached $9,089 and MBNA determined his account to be delinquent. MBNA, then rediscovered Dr. Whitemore. After failing to contact the doctor as it increased his son's liability, the company then demanded that Dr. Whitemore assume responsibility for the debt as guarantor. I think this is wrong. This amendment would correct that. I also want to respond to those who question the link between credit card debt and bankruptcy. All-purpose credit card debt is the most frequently listed debt in bankruptcy files. Eighty-eight percent of the debtors in bankruptcy have credit card debt of some kind. According to a study by Harvard Professor Elizabeth Warren, the median debtors in bankruptcy are carrying six times higher credit card debts than other cardholders. Homeowners in the United States spend, on average, about $18 of every $100 of take-home pay for principal, interest, taxes, and insurance on their mortgage payments. A family spending more than $28 is considered house poor. Median debtors in bankruptcy owe $47 of each $100 of income to their credit card. Experts who testified before Congress on this issue have linked the share rise in consumer debt and the corresponding rise in consumer bankruptcy to lower credit standards. As I have said, today, a seven times greater percentage of youth go through bankruptcy than did 5 years ago. So this is clearly a problem that is increasing. I don't believe minors should have their credit histories ruined when they take their first steps as adults; nor should we put parents in the position of having to bail out their kids to protect their kids' future credit rating. A credit card limit, per card, of $2,500, I believe, is prudent and wise. If a youngster wants to go beyond that, they have to show that they can pay it back or, secondly, have a parent or guardian cosign. I am very pleased to join with Senator Jeffords and Senator Durbin in presenting this amendment. Exhibit 1 [From the Los Angeles Times, Jan. 17, 1999] Son's Debt Plagues Dad for 7 Years (By Kenneth Reich) Guaranteeing a credit card for a child about to go off to college is fairly common, but it seldom generates as much trouble as it did for Dr. James H. Whitmore, a retired surgeon from Carson. He has been through a seven-year drama that is not over yet. When his son, Quentin Whitmore, entered Cal State Dominguez Hills in 1992, he wanted him to have a credit card. This is natural, since even if, as in this case, the child is going to be close to home, the parent knows he will be more on his own and may need emergency financial resources. And so, after some exploring, Whitmore agreed to co-sign his son's application with MBNA of Wilmington, Del. ``This I did with the stipulation that his credit limit be $500,'' he recalls. At first, all went well. Quentin Whitmore was making small payments on the card out of the allowances his dad gave him. But then, without ever notifying his dad, MBNA, which describes itself as ``the largest independent credit card lender in the world with $59.6 billion in loans,'' repeatedly raised young Whitmore's credit limit. It finally hit $9,000. By the end of 1996, the balance on the card, including late charges, reached $9,089, and MBNA declared the account delinquent. It informed Whitmore Sr. that he owed that amount as guarantor. The doctor refused to pay. As MBNA put the sum out for collection and subsequently entered a bad credit report against both father and son, Whitmore insisted he had never authorized raising the limit and therefore was not responsible for the debts on the card above $500. He did send in $500. I asked Whitmore whether he wasn't teed off at his son too. ``I remonstrated with my son and guess what happened?'' he said. ``His grades went from A's to nothing. One entire year was wasted.'' Quentin Whitmore, now 24 and still a Dominguez Hills student, explained it this way: ``When I received the credit raises, I assumed [my father] had approved them. I never thought to call him, because at the outset MBNA had agreed not to raise the limits unless he gave his approval.'' A Quicken survey last year revealed nearly half of college students bounce checks, 71% of those with cards fail to pay off balances monthly and most estimate that they will have $15,000 in debt before graduation. So young Whitmore's extravagance, or needs, may not be that unusual. I asked MBNA whether it would acknowledge a mistake in raising young Whitmore's limit so high. That was indeed a mistake, said Brian Dalphon, a MBNA senior vice president. He said his credit account was never coded as either a student or a guarantor account, as it should have been. ``When we assign a credit line to a student, it's at a lower limit, initially $500 [as in Whitmore's case],'' he explained. ``And we're very conservative with it. We don't raise the limits very quickly. A typical credit line for a student remains at $500 to $1,000.'' When Dr. Whitmore was first billed as the guarantor, however, he was unsuccessful for months in resisting. Finally, the Los Angeles County Consumer Affairs Department agreed to intervene for him. Timothy Bissell, the agency's assistant director, observed, ``As a matter of contract law, MBNA could not hold him responsible for a higher amount than $500 unless they had notified him they were raising the credit limit.'' * * * On Oct. 27, 1997, 10 months after trying to bill Dr. Whitmore, MBNA First Vice President Edward Matthews informed the department that the doctor was being absolved of responsibility for the debt above $500 and that a bad reference was being stricken from his credit file. ``I apologize for any inconvenience Dr. Whitmore has been caused by this situation,'' he wrote. ``Due to a keying error when the account was established in 1992, the account received automatic credit line increases until December 1996 as a result of Quentin Whitmore's previous satisfactory payment history.'' But, at that time, the nature of the keying error was left obscure. And the ``satisfactory payment history'' was left undetailed. The Whitmores say the delinquency took the better part of a year to develop, after payment requests far outstripped young Whitmore's ability to pay. Quentin Whitmore's account has now been closed, Dalphon said. But, Dr. Whitmore said, his son will keep his bad credit rating for several years, and six months ago, when the senior Whitmore last checked, he said he found his own credit record still impaired. MBNA proposed 18 months ago to forgive 50% of Quentin Whitmore's balance if he agreed to pay monthly installments of $378. But Dr. Whitmore said his son ``has absolutely no income'' as he continues his studies. ``So I called them and told them that if they would remove all the late charges, the excess limit charges and reduce this to the absolute minimum that he originally charged, then I would negotiate a settlement with them under these conditions and pay them off myself, But they refused.'' Dalphon declined to say whether MBNA continues to try to collect. Dr. Whitmore remains unhappy. ``I do not feel that MBNA's hands are clean in this matter,'' he said. ``If the limits on this account had not been raised, then my son would not have been able to abuse it. If what the credit card companies are doing to our youth before they can develop a sense of financial responsibility is legal, then new laws are needed.'' But, of course, MBNA denies its policy is to raise limits on students. It maintains that what happened was another of these electronic glitches I sometimes write about.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill, the distinguished Senator from Iowa. I call up amendment No. 27.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment cosponsored by Senator Jeffords and Senator Durbin. The amendment would put a $2,500 cap on any credit card issued to a minor--that is, an individual under 21--unless the minor submits an application with the signature of his parent or guardian indicating joint liability for debt or the minor submits financial information indicating an independent means or an ability to repay the debt that the card accrues. The amendment would give parents who cosign for liability on their child's credit card the opportunity to have some say in the credit limit on the card. Why is this amendment needed? Supporters of bankruptcy reform have justified this bill on the basis of personal responsibility. I agree with that basic presumption. Responsible debtors should pay back the debts they can afford to repay. The bill, however, must be balanced. If Congress really intends to tackle the surging tide of bankruptcy cases, our laws must enforce responsibility on the part of creditors as well. One area where I think creditors must show more responsibility is the marketing of credit cards to minors. For those under 18, there are some protections. In each of the 50 States, juveniles under 18 lack the authority to sign contracts with narrow exceptions. Thus, if a credit card company issued a card to a 15-year-old, the company would not be able to legally enforce its debt in bankruptcy court. Yet, there is a gaping loophole with respect to college students. It is almost impossible for students on campus to avoid credit card offers. Applications are stuffed in plastic bags at the campus bookstore, solicitations hang from bulletin boards, and credit card representatives set up tables at student unions, enticing students with free gifts. Credit cards are increasingly pressed on college students, even those with no income or no credit history. A parent's signature is not required. With their low monthly payments, these cards are very attractive to cash-strapped students and appear to impose little financial burden. Minors today are getting credit cards at younger and younger ages. In 1994, 66 percent of college students with at least one card received their first card before college or during their freshman year. In 1998, 81 percent had received their first card by the end of their freshman year. The cards are attractive because minimum payments are typically low. However, if students just make the minimum payments, they get in way over their heads. For example, if a student makes just a $25 minimum payment on a $1,500 line of credit, at 19.8 percent interest, it will take 282 months to pay off the debt. Not surprisingly, with credit cards flooding college campuses, student debts are rising. Nellie Mae, the student loan giant, found that 78 percent of undergraduate students who applied for credit-based loans with Nellie Mae in the year 2000 had credit cards. This is up from 67 percent in 1998. Of the 78 percent of undergraduates who had credit cards in Nellie Mae's Year 2000 study, the average student had three cards, with 32 percent having four or more credit cards. The average debt of these credit-card owning undergraduates was $2,748. This is up from an average of $1,879 in Nellie Mae's 1998 study. Some 13 percent of these students had balances of $3,000 to $7,000 and 9 percent owed amounts exceeding $7,000. Traditionally, American youth under 25 have contributed marginally to the ranks of our nation's bankruptcy filers. However, over the past 10 years, our youth have represented a larger and larger slice of those who file for bankruptcy. In 1996, only 1 percent of personal bankruptcies were by those age 25 or younger. By 1998, that number had risen to almost 5 percent. In 1999, a year later, the number rose to 6.8 percent of all bankruptcy filers. In committee, I was asked the question: What does this have to do with bankruptcy? I would like to answer it. A seven times greater percentage of minors are filing for bankruptcy today than just 5 years ago, and the great bulk of this is credit card debt. Credit cards are a major factor in student and youth debt. For example, at the Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Greater Denver, more than half of all clients are ages 18 to 35. On average, they have 30 percent more debt than all other age groups. Let me give you a couple of examples of the runup of credit card debt that has plagued so many unwary youth. A USA Today article on February 13, 2001, describes the case of Jennifer Massey. As a freshman at the University of Houston, Jennifer signed up for a credit card. She got a free T-shirt. A year later, she had piled on $20,000 in debt on 14 credit cards. Another case: A young Mexican American from Los Angeles declared bankruptcy just last July after racking up $20,000 in credit card expenses. Most of it was for clothes, dinners, and drinks with friends. A West Virginia student saddled with student loans filled out applications for 10 major credit cards and was approved for every single one--showing no ability to repay that debt. A youngster at Georgetown University fell into debt totaling over $10,000. Unable to make even the minimum payments, she had to turn to her parents in order to bail her out. Alex, a college freshman, found himself over $5,000 in credit card debt by the end of his first semester. His parents had to take out a loan to pay off his debt to the credit card company. When Alex graduated in 1999, his family was still making payments on the loan to pay off his debt from his freshman year. Let me give you the case of Sean Moyer. He was a student at the University of Oklahoma who ran up more than $10,000 in debt. The crushing debt was one of the factors he cited before committing suicide on February 7, 1998, at the age of 22. Contrary to what you may hear from the opposition to this amendment, this amendment is not about the right of an 18-year-old to get a credit card. I have no problem with that. The concern is the unlimited credit that the youngster can place on that card. Like any other adult who seeks credit, a minor who has independent means to repay debts is entitled to credit based on his ability to pay. A minor with adequate resources, or with a parental cosigner, can get a credit limit under this amendment of $5,000, $10,000, or $20,000. I just want to say that this amendment places the $2,500 debt limit on each credit card--not the combination of credit cards, but each credit card. We think it is fair, and we think it is responsible. During a recent ``60 Minutes II'' interview, sources in the credit card industry stated that even if a student's application for credit indicates no source of income, the student still gets approved for credit. The credit card company assumes that the student has other means to pay because they buy books, clothes, CDs, or that a parent is going to bail them out. So without this amendment, credit card companies can continue to lend reckless amounts of money to college students that any reasonable inquiry into the student's financial status would indicate the student could not afford. Then, when a student can't pay his or her debt, the lender can pressure the parent to assume the liability or use the full power of the bankruptcy court to recover the amount it is owed. The bankruptcy court should not be used as a collection agency for ill-advised extensions of credit to college students by credit card lenders. I also want to briefly discuss the section of this amendment that would give a parent who cosigns for a credit card some measure of control over future expansion of credit limits on the card. Under current law, if a parent assumes joint liability for a credit card with his or her minor child, the parent has no control over the debt limit on the card. A credit card company can raise the debt limit without consulting the parent. The credit card company can even raise the debt limit if the parent expressly objects to any further increase. Let me give you a case written up in the Los Angeles Times. I ask unanimous consent that the Times story be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Mr. Friedman makes a simple but profound point. He writes that many ``are asking exactly the wrong question about the Sharon election. They're asking, who is Ariel Sharon? The real question is, who is Yasser Arafat?'' He continues, ``the press keeps asking: Will Mr. Sharon become another Charles de Gaulle . . . or will he be Richard Nixon, the anti- Communist who made peace with Communist China?'' So we naturally ask the question, will Ariel Sharon reach out to the Palestinians? As Tom Friedman points out, this is exactly the wrong way to look at Ariel Sharon or the recent election. Why? Because Israel just had its de Gaulle. His name was Ehud Barak. Mr. Barak was Israel's most decorated soldier. He abstained in the cabinet vote over the Oslo II peace accords. But once in office he changed 180 degrees. He offered Mr. Arafat 94 percent of the West Bank for a Palestinian state . . . plus half of Jerusalem . . . and Mr. Arafat not only said no to all this, but described Israel as ``fascist'' as Mr. Barak struggled for re-election. Mr. Friedman continues to state what has become clear: ``What good is it for Israel to have a Nixon if the Palestinians have no Mao?'' As someone who has been a supporter of the Oslo process from the start, I say this with a great deal of regret. And I wish this were not the case. But we have seen Israel make the offer, an historic offer, only to have it rebuffed. The consequences of this could, in fact, be devastating. In his victory speech, Prime Minister Sharon called on the Palestinians ``to cast off the path of violence and to return to the path of dialogue'' while acknowledging that ``peace requires painful compromises on both sides.'' Mr. Sharon has said that he favors a long-term interim agreement with the Palestinians since a comprehensive agreement is not now possible because the Palestinians have shown they are not ready to conclude such an agreement. He has stated that he accepts a demilitarized Palestinian state, is committed to improving the daily lives of the Palestinians, and has reportedly indicated that he does not plan to build new West Bank settlements. Whatever happens, there can be little doubt that it will have a profound impact on United States strategic interests in the Middle East. And because of that, the United States must remain an interested party in the region. I believe that it is critical that both parties need to make every effort to end the current cycle of provocation and reaction, with a special responsibility that is incumbent upon the Palestinian Authority to seek an end to the riots, the terror, the bombings, and the shootings. There must be a ``time out'' on violence before the situation degenerates further into war. We can all remember the images, from last fall, of the Palestinian child hiding behind his father, caught in the cross-fire, shot to death, and then the images, a few days later, the pictures of the Israeli soldier who was beaten while in custody and thrown out of a second floor window of the police station, to be beaten to death by the mob below. It is easy to understand how passions can run high, and frustration and fear can drive violence. But it is also easy to see how these feelings--even these feelings, that are based in legitimate aspiration--can get out of control and lead to ever deeper, and never-ending, cycles of violence. The Palestinian leadership must make every effort to end this cycle, to quell the attitude of hate that has been fostered among the Palestinian people, and to act to curb the violence, and to convince Israel that they are indeed serious and sincere about pursuing peace. But until there is evidence that the violence is ending, the United States cannot be productively engaged between the two parties. If both Israel and the Palestinians can make progress in curbing or ending the violence, the United States can play an important role in helping to shape intermediate confidence-building measures between Israel and the Palestinians. The current environment makes a comprehensive agreement impossible, but proximity gives the Israelis and the Palestinians no choice but to learn to live together. The alternative is clearly war. And the United States must continue to work together with Israel to strengthen the bilateral relationship, to ensure that Israel has the tools it needs to defend itself, and to enhance security in the region. There are those who now believe that the Palestinians don't want peace; that, in fact, they want to continue the violence, and force Israel into the sea; to take back Jaffa; to take back Haifa. There is a segment of the population that believes this is true. But I say, how realistic is this? Can there be any doubt that Israel has the ability to defend itself, and will? Or that should there be an effort to attack Israel, to end this democracy, that the United States would be fully involved? There is no doubt of that. So the ball is now in the Palestinian court, to show that Palestinians are interested in ending violence and bloodshed. Israel, under Barak, has shown how far it will go to search for peace, much further than I ever thought possible. The concessions offered at Camp David, and after, are testament, I believe, to Israel's desire and commitment for peace. But to seek to force peace in light of hostility and hatred on the streets is neither realistic nor sustainable. The Sharon election, I believe, can be seen as a referendum on Arafat's actions and policies, and the Palestinian violence, and it must be taken seriously by the Palestinians if the peace process is to ever get back on track. Just last summer, the 7-year-old peace process seemed on the verge of success, but the chairman walked away from the deal at the last moment. I hope that someday soon Chairman Arafat will realize the profound disservice that he has done his people, and the people of the world, that he will realize that the framework for peace was on the table, that he will realize that continued violence is not the way to achieve the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people, and that continued violence will not gain him or his people additional concessions at the negotiating table. And I believe that if and when he does realize this, when he takes action to bring the current violence to an end, he will find that Israel remains a partner in the search for peace in the Middle East, with the United States as a facilitator. Until then, however, the United States must be clear that we continue to stand with Israel, an historic ally and partner in the search for security and peace in the Middle East. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today a new government has been formed in Israel under the leadership of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, with Shimon Peres as Foreign Minister and the broad-based participation of many across Israel's political spectrum. I would like to take a few minutes today to share my assessment of the present situation, where things stand, and what this may mean for U.S. policy in the region. I rise today as one who has supported the peace process, believed that a peace agreement was possible, and who has worked in the Senate, along with many of my colleagues, to see that the United States played an active role in helping Israel and the Palestinians seek peace. Prime Minister Ehud Barak was elected two years ago to make peace and to bring about an ``end of the conflict'' with both Syria and the Palestinians. He was elected with a mandate to complete the Oslo process, a goal at the time supported by the majority of the people of Israel. Over the past two years Prime Minister Barak tried, heroically and energetically, to achieve a comprehensive peace with both parties. Indeed, it has been said I believe, that Prime Minister Barak went further than any other Israeli Prime Minister in an attempt to reach a comprehensive agreement with the Palestinians which includes: The creation of a Palestinian state; Palestinian control of all of Gaza; Palestinian control of approximately 94 to 95 percent of the West Bank, and territorial compensation for most of the other five percent; A division of Jerusalem, with Palestinian control over the Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and the possibility of a Palestinian capitol in Jerusalem; and Shared sovereignty arrangements for the Temple Mount. The issue of Palestinian refugees, was addressed with tens of thousands of Palestinians to be allowed into Israel as part of a family reunification program, and compensation in the tens of billions of dollars provided to other Palestinian refugees as well. Not only was the Palestinian response to these unprecedented offers ``no,'' but, even as Prime Minister Barak attempted to engage Chairman Yasser Arafat at the negotiation table, the Palestinians took to a campaign of violence in the streets, and threatened to unilaterally declare an independent Palestinian state: When the violence began, the Fatah's militia, the Tanzim, fired upon Israelis with submachine guns. The Fatah and the Tanzim have been active in the violence--even encouraging its escalation--to this day; Chairman Arafat freed a number of Hamas terrorists who instantly turned around and vowed violence against Israel; The Palestinian media, under the control of the Palestinian Authority, has been used to disseminate inciting material, providing encouragement to damage holy Jewish sites, to kill Israelis, and carry out acts of terror; and, Palestinian schools were closed down by the Palestinian Authority allowing Palestinian children to participate in the riots and violence. And in reaction, all too often, Israel, too, has resorted to violence in an effort to protect its security and safeguard the lives of its people. This new Intifadah has been characterized by a level of hate and violence that, frankly, I did not believe possible in view of the extensive concessions Israel had offered. And it is clear, I believe, that much of this campaign of violence, this new Intifadah which continues to this day, has been coordinated and planned. Because I was at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos two months ago which was also attended by Shimon Peres and Yasser Arafat, I read with great interest Tom Friedman's op-ed in The New York Times 3 weeks ago. As Mr. Friedman's column reports, when Mr. Peres extended the olive branch to Mr. Arafat at Davos, ``Mr. Arafat torched it.'' I urge all of my colleagues to read Thomas Friedman's op-ed article: ``Sharon, Arafat and Mao,'' which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to honor the hard work and dedication of the late James C. Corman, an esteemed Member of the House of Representatives from California for 20 years. Jim Corman was born in Kansas, and moved to California with his mother shortly after his father's death. He served in the Marines during World War II. After the war, Jim worked his way through the University of California at Los Angeles and the University of Southern California Law School. He first held public office in 1957, when he was elected to the Los Angeles City Council. Jim was first elected to the House in 1960. In 1963, he began serving on the Judiciary Committee, which he felt handled the issues that were among the most important and relevant to Americans. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, he was an influential voice in drafting and passing the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964. Jim always considered this as the greatest accomplishment of his life. In 1968, Jim became a member of the Ways and Means Committee, where he devoted his energy to Social Security, tax, and welfare reform. He became a crusader for the welfare of senior citizens and the disadvantaged members of our society. Recognizing that his constituents would have better access to federal services if there were a federal building in the San Fernando Valley, Jim was responsible for securing funds for its construction. It is only fitting that this building be named after the man who considered constituent service to be one of his top priorities. Mr. President, James C. Corman was a well-respected Member of the House. I am pleased to honor his memory by introducing a bill to designate the federal building in Van Nuys as the James C. Corman Federal Building.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have a very different view of this matter than that of the distinguished Senator from Arkansas. This is the first time the Congress of the United States will have removed a worker protection in the history of the United States. So it is really a precedent-setting debate. It is also a debate, I think, about which there is a great deal of misunderstanding. In this new workforce of higher skills, of greater technology, this issue, ergonomics, encompasses the No. 1 workplace injury. Of course, many of the victims of repetitive stress disorder are women. As a matter of fact, about 70 percent of the victims are women. As has been mentioned many times, the effort to do something about it began in a Republican administration with Secretary Elizabeth Dole, a very fine woman. I have watched her. I have great respect for her. She began the promulgation of these rules which have just gone into place. What I have heard is why we should not proceed with this. I am of another opinion. I believe we should proceed with it. If there are changes that need to be made, we should make those changes, but essentially this whole area is a pretty simple one. Data entry employees use computer keyboards every day. Providing these employees with a wrist pad at the base of the keyboard to reduce strain on the wrist is what we are talking about. That is ergonomics. Furniture movers lift heavy objects and boxes on a daily basis. Providing them with training on how to lift with the legs and providing them with back braces--that is ergonomics. Today, I watched a young man push water jugs on a dolly, the water jugs for our offices in the Senate. I watched him take out two very large bottles of water. I thought of him lifting these 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year, without a brace, without knowing how to lift correctly. You can see the impact this repetitive motion would have on the muscles and skeleton of an individual. Each year, 600,000 Americans suffer work-related repetitive stress injuries. Businesses spend $15 billion to $20 billion in workers compensation costs alone. It is estimated that $1 out of every $3 spent on workers compensation is related to these injuries. In my State, California, in 1998 more than 80,500 private sector workers suffered from repetitive stress injuries that were serious enough to cause them to lose time from work, and another 20,000 public sector workers struggled also with these injuries. The program standard states that employers must provide employees basic information about these injuries, common signs and symptoms of these injuries, and how to report them in the workplace. I don't think anything is wrong with that. The standard requires employers to review jobs to determine whether they routinely involve exposure to one or more of the five ergonomic risk factors: repetition, force, awkward posture, contact stress, and vibration. If a job meets one of these five so-called action triggers, the employer has two options. He or she can provide a quick fix by addressing the potentially harmful situation immediately. An example would be an owner of a furniture company providing his employee who moves furniture with a back brace, or a wrist pad for a data entry operator, or an adjustable chair for an employee who must sit at a computer for 8 hours a day. If a quick fix isn't possible, the employer must develop and implement an ergonomic program for that job and others like it. For example, an employer could hire someone to come in and offer a training course to teach employees how to sit properly, how to use their arms and legs, how to lift from the legs, how to use a stepladder when lifting objects off a tall shelf, and so on. The point I want to make is many businesses have already instituted ergonomics programs. I respectfully submit to the speaker who preceded me, that may well be one of the reasons why some of these injury statistics are, in fact, declining. Let me try to make that case. As a result of labor negotiations with the United Auto Workers, Ford, General Motors, and DaimlerChrysler, an ergonomic program was put in place in 1994. The programs have been highly successful. The Bureau of Labor estimates that in just 1 year, 69,000 work-related injuries were prevented in these companies. Of these, 41,000, or over two-thirds, were repetitive stress injuries. The number of these injuries reported to the big three automobile manufacturers dropped 12 percent over 1 year, and 33 percent over 5 years. That shows the statistics go down, the claims go down as these programs are in place. Let me read from a letter from Xerox Corporation: Our workers' compensation claims attributable to ergonomic issues peaked in 1992. Since then, we have experienced a steady decline in the number of cases, as well as the costs associated with those cases. 1998 data indicates a 24 percent reduction in the number of cases and a 56 percent reduction in associated direct costs from the 1992 baseline. We attribute this improvement to the reduction of ergonomic hazards in our jobs and improved case management of injured workers. Our ergonomic injury-illness rate in manufacturing is currently 52 percent lower than OSHA's estimated annual incidence. This is a big company. The rate is 52 percent lower. That should show that these programs are working. Levi Straus, Coca-Cola, and Business Week are just a few of the companies that have cited cost savings and increased productivity as a direct result of ergonomics. Silicon Graphics, a computer company in Mountain View, CA, hired an ergonomics consultant in 1994 after the company had 70 work-related repetitive stress injury cases in 1 year. The company redesigned work stations to include adjustable tables, chairs, keyboards, and mouses. The changes worked. Silicon Graphics reduced its work-related stress injuries by 41 percent from 1994 to 1995 and by 50 percent from 1995 to 1996. The program works. Blue Cross: In 1990, 26 employees of Blue Cross of California were unable to do their jobs because of debilitating pain. As a result, they filed workers compensation claims that cost the company $1.6 million. To combat the problem, the company purchased adjustable chairs and work stations. Blue Cross also launched a training program to teach employees how to use the new equipment and how to identify work-related stress injuries early. Guess what. The investment paid off. The number of these injuries dropped dramatically. Blue Cross of California received a $1 million insurance dividend in both 1992 and 1993. Let me give you a city in my State--San Jose, a large, growing city. San Jose experienced a large number of ergonomic-related back and neck injuries during the early 1990s. To address the problem, the city analyzed each of its jobs over a number of days to identify high-risk activity. A training session was created to show workers how to work differently and reduce the risk of injury. That is ergonomics. Once again, the efforts paid off. Back injuries fell by 57 percent and wrist injuries fell by 26 percent. Ergonomics works. Pacific Bell was spending approximately $53 million annually for workers compensation benefits paid to 53,000 employees, 30,000 of whom operated video display terminals. The company developed an $18 million ergonomics program providing education, training, brochures, and interfocal eyeglasses for video terminal operators. The results were impressive. Workers compensation claims dropped 33 percent. Ergonomics works. The benefits of the standard: The Department of Labor estimates these work rules will prevent 4.6 million repetitive stress injuries in the first 10 years of its implementation, and 102 million workers will be protected at 6.1 million worksites across the country. They estimate companies will save $9.2 billion a year in workers compensation claims similar to what has happened in Blue Cross, in Xerox, in Chrysler, in Ford, in the city of San Jose, and in Pacific Bell. For each repetitive stress injury prevented, the Department estimates a direct savings of $27,700. If what I think will happen happens when this vote is taken, and the ergonomics standard is overturned, OSHA is barred from introducing any standard that is substantially similar to the rule unless specifically authorized by a subsequent act of Congress. This effectively kills a 10-year effort. Ironically, under the Congressional Review Act, no one is allowed to filibuster this joint resolution of disapproval, but any future efforts to implement a new program would be open to filibuster. If the standard is overturned, we are going to have to rely on individual companies to implement their own ergonomics standards. Though some companies have done this, 600,000 people still suffer work-related repetitive stress injuries a year. The rate of these injuries is falling, but they are still the Nation's biggest and most costly job safety problem. These injuries still make up one-third of all lost work-time injuries suffered by American workers and cost our economy close to $50 billion a year. In conclusion, Mr. President, I have tried to outline where large companies have implemented ergonomics standards, and all of the statistics coming from those standards have run in the right direction--reduced claims, lower worker compensation payments, insurance dividends, and so on and so forth. I must say that I am profoundly disappointed by the fact that there are those in this body who would like to do away with worker protection for the No. 1 workplace injury--repetitive stress motions. I hope very much that this resolution will be disapproved. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, more than 17 million people in sub-Saharan Africa, one half the population of California, have died from AIDS. To begin to address this catastrophe, Senator Feingold and I introduced an Amendment to the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act that would have helped ensure access to generic AIDS drugs for nations in sub-Saharan Africa ravaged by the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Despite the fact that this amendment was approved by the Senate, it was stricken from the final Africa Trade Conference Report. Subsequently, the Clinton Administration issued an Executive Order that ensured that the countries of sub-Saharan Africa could provide their people with affordable HIV/AIDS drugs. And, two weeks ago, I am pleased to note, the Bush Administration indicated that it would not seek to overturn this Executive Order. Now, Senator Feingold and I have developed the ``Global Access to AIDS Treatment Act of 2001'' which, among other provisions: Codifies the Executive Order into law; Directs that the law must apply to the 48 nations of sub-Saharan Africa; and Expands the scope of the law to cover all developing nations facing a catastrophic AIDS crisis. Unless the United States takes a leadership role in recognizing, as does the WTO TRIPS agreement, that there is a moral obligation to put people over profits, the human devastation and social instability that has already begun in countries facing an AIDS crisis will grow to unfathomable levels. Until recently, many people have been unaware of the depth of the global loss being caused by this epidemic. The HIV virus has infected over 36 million people worldwide, with over 95 percent of those infected living outside of the United States. Over 21.8 million people have died from HIV/AIDS world-wide since the beginning of the epidemic, 3 million in 2000 alone. In sub-Saharan Africa, where 70 percent of all deaths from HIV/AIDS have occurred, 17 million people, as I said before, have died from HIV/ AIDS since the epidemic began, and 2.4 million in the year 2000. To address this pandemic, Senator Feingold and I have developed legislation to address the crisis. This legislation does the following: First, this legislation directs the U.S. Government to refrain from seeking the revision of any law, imposed by a government of a developing nation facing an AIDS crisis, that promotes access to HIV/ AIDS pharmaceuticals and medical technologies. This will ensure that HIV/AIDS drugs are more affordable and more available to those most in need. Second, this legislation authorizes $25 million a year for programs to develop and strengthen health care infrastructure in developing countries. Third, the legislation calls upon the World Health Organization and UNAIDS to take the lead in organizing efficient procurement of compulsory licences of pharmaceutical patents, active ingredients of drugs, and finished medications for countries that require this assistance. Fourth, this legislation calls on the National Institutes of Health, NIH, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, to work with developing countries and international service providers to develop best practices for delivering pharmaceuticals to those who need them. Fifth, this legislation requires the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, and NIH to develop and maintain a database for information on drugs, patent status, and treatment protocols to assist health-care providers from around the globe in providing the best care possible to all patients. And finally, this legislation provides $1 million a year to encourage American physicians, nurses, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, public health workers, pharmacists, and other health professionals to provide HIV/AIDS care and treatment in developing countries. This legislation will allow countries facing an HIV/AIDS crisis to better determine the availability of HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals in their countries, and provide their people with affordable HIV/AIDS drugs. It is clearly in the national interest of the United States to prevent the further spread of HIV/AIDS, and I believe that this legislation is necessary to continue to assist the countries of the developing world to bring this deadly disease under control. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to honor the hard work and dedication of the late James C. Corman, an esteemed Member of the House of Representatives from California for 20 years. Jim Corman was born in Kansas, and moved to California with his mother shortly after his father's death. He served in the Marines during World War II. After the war, Jim worked his way through the University of California at Los Angeles and the University of Southern California Law School. He first held public office in 1957, when he was elected to the Los Angeles City Council. Jim was first elected to the House in 1960. In 1963, he began serving on the Judiciary Committee, which he felt handled the issues that were among the most important and relevant to Americans. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, he was an influential voice in drafting and passing the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964. Jim always considered this as the greatest accomplishment of his life. In 1968, Jim became a member of the Ways and Means Committee, where he devoted his energy to Social Security, tax, and welfare reform. He became a crusader for the welfare of senior citizens and the disadvantaged members of our society. Recognizing that his constituents would have better access to federal services if there were a federal building in the San Fernando Valley, Jim was responsible for securing funds for its construction. It is only fitting that this building be named after the man who considered constituent service to be one of his top priorities. Mr. President, James C. Corman was a well-respected Member of the House. I am pleased to honor his memory by introducing a bill to designate the federal building in Van Nuys as the James C. Corman Federal Building.